Which key?

There are arguments for using the amenity, building, leisure and man_made keys. I think man_made over amenity. Amenity is intended for "useful and important facilities for visitors and residents: toilets, telephones, banks, pharmacies (to buy medicines), schools ... " - hides aren't exactly essential--LeedsTracker 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the amenity Key. Man_Made so far implies structures have no use by the general public. A Wildlife_Hide may not be important, but it is a useful facility for visitors, which indicates an amenity use.-Jamicu 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are various proposals for buildings going on. Seems many of these overlap with amenities and man_mades --LeedsTracker 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The accepted(?) proposal for man_made=building makes things difficult. But I think this should come under either amenity or man_made. The whole building tag requires clarification since it overlaps and implies deletion of so many other tags.-Jamicu 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is an established amenity=hunting_stand key. Outwardly the hides can appear very similar even if the uses are quite different. I could believe that there might even be some dual use hides somewhere. So something like wildlife_hide combined with sport=hunting or twitching might make sense. Both activities probably count as leisure but amenity also seems reasonable. Other attributes are likely to be in common like whether they are covered and how high they are. --Opk 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Which tag?

I think wildlife_hide is reasonable because as categories, birds are within wildlife, and many hides let you watch both. I am inclined to revise this proposal accordingly for the next stage. --LeedsTracker 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a wildlife tag, you can then choose what is commonly observed e.g amenity=wildlife_hide, wildlife_hide=bird.-Jamicu

Shed only?

I was wondering if bird_hide can only be used for shed-like structures (i.e. closed on all sides)? I know a "bird wall" or "bird screen", which is just a wooden screen (plus a small roof) with holes in it, see image here or more pictures here (bottom of the page). Would that count as a bird_hide? Mtcv 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they all fit the label 'bird hide' - the wikipedia def agrees. The main function is the same - see the bird without it seeing you, and don't shoot it (unlike a hunting hide) --LeedsTracker 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I tagged it here (you can't see it on the map of course). Mtcv 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't map!

I oppose this proposal. E.G. in arabic countries you can make a lot of money with eggs of seldom birds.
By putting bird hides into the map, several seldom species might be endangered, as you are not able to inform all mappers which places are kept secret by animal friends and which can be published.
Lulu-Ann

Could be just near a common watering place or other high population area, not even mainly near nests. Alv 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but who is going to inform all mapper newbies not to map bird hides near seldom eagle nests ? Who ? Will you also propose to map refuges for battered women? This is just the same kind of problem here. It's simply a fact that some things should not be published at all. Lulu-Ann

I'm sure you too want the battered women to find the refuges, so they must be on the map. Even christian churches in Kabul or other Taleban controlled area ought to be added, even if the fundamentalist locals don't appear hostile against them. It means that they must educated and not that the the data should be hidden. Alv 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, refuges for battered women are found in telephone books, but no adresses are published because the batting men shall not find them. You don't seem to see the difference between an information and an invitation for a crime. Lulu-Ann

Only a criminal is responsible for his or her crime. Ever. Alv 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see the argument. These shelters can often be found in nature reserves here and would be incredibly useful on the map (and the maps at these nature reserves show them as well). If we're going to not map anything that might be used in some crime, let's make a hyperbole and not tag every road since they might be used by burglars to access private homes. --Eimai 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid about bird hides that are in public maps, but who will inform users not to map "secret" nests? The German Naturschutzbehörde has made sure that the nests are not subject of publication as European law tries to request. Lulu-Ann

A nature conservation activist may freely choose not to map some of them, but there's no way nor authority to stop other random osm mappers from adding any of them if they spot them on the ground, secret or not. Alv 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See it from another side: it's not just the criminals that can find these secret bird hides on the map. Police could find it as well and check out the place. And if police doesn't care, perhaps some other nature lovers see it on the map and observe birds from the place, which would really make it harder for criminals to use the place, since the place isn't secret anymore. Secondly, I think these secret bird hides are far away from any place where people would normally come, so I doubt there would even appear one secret bird hide on the map. --Eimai 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bird or Wildlife Hides are commonly created and maintained by wildlife conservation groups. They exist to allow the public to view wildlife in a controlled way, so that the wildlife is not disturbed. It would ridiculous to ban the mapping of Bird Hides provided and maintained by a national wildlife conservation organisations.-Jamicu 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What about a text something like "Warning: Be careful with mapping bird hides that isn't meant for public knowledge. Non-public bird nests can in worst case be used for criminal activities like selling eggs of seldom birds. Be sure to verify regulations in your country.". And after that have a list about country specific regulations and recommendations. Could this issue be reflected on the proposal page? --Kslotte 11:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Very similar arguments come up in other circles such as public disclosure of IT security holes. Trying to make secrets of anything for which information is there just doesn't work. Bad guys will go to a lot of effort to find out what they need to know. For every potential egg thief there are probably many many potential bird enthusiasts and good maps will encourage them. I believe that by mapping wildlife hides you are likely to do more to protect than endanger the birds. --Opk 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's really naiv. It only needs one night and one thief to endanger a nest. You can have hundereds of bird enthusiasts that sleep in their beds meanwhile. They can't help. And if they would sneak around a nest all night to protect it, it would endanger the nest aswell. Don't map! Lulu-Ann

As User:Alv says hides are rarely near nests, or when allowing a nest to be observed, are not remotely close to nests. In Britain, and I would imagine most other European countries, bird hides are classed as buildings and require the appropriate public planning permission before construction (e.g., [1]). As these are usually built in nature reserves under the management of wildlife authorities, there are many further conservation considerations applied to planning, siting and building such structures, which no doubt include consideration of nest sites. Also as others have said these are significant destination sites, often requiring payment for use (e.g., Rutland Water, Minsmere, Wildlife and Wetland Centre) . Hides are widely described, for instance in the series published by Helm "Where to Watch Birds in...", or by tourist authorities. Furthermore many hides are fairly prominent structures, e.g., Klingnauerstausee, [Attenborough Tower Hide]. It is therefore absurd to advocate a blanket ban on mapping such sites. There are plenty of other good reasons for mapping them, for instance recently I visited the site of a hide I had used in 2001, but it had decayed and fallen apart: it would have been very nice to have known that before I visited it. In particular the absence of the hide made it much more likely that I could disturb the birds at roost. SK53 10:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconed. A bird hide is a permanent structure especially made for the public to observe birds and other creatures. It's not set up for one selected nest in the thicket.

A thief does not need to know about bird hides but only in which area seldom birds breed. As eggs can not run away, he does not need to hide. --t-i 10:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you are not talking about a bird hide but about a ornithologist hide. Then the tag has the wrong name! "Bird hide" invites to misunderstandings. I have no problem at all to map ornithologist's hides. Just don't call it bird hide if you don't mean it. Lulu-Ann

Combination

Wouldn't it be better to combine this proposed tag with the tag hunting_stand? Or why not with shelter an a more specific subtag? Shelter=yes, shelter=bird_hide; shelter=yes, shelter=hunting_stand and there are more possible uses possible, see Proposed_features/shelter_type --DINENISO 08:00, 27 April 2011 (BST)

Why only nodes?

I think it doesn't make sense to prevent mappers from mapping these as areas where they think it is more appropriate. I'd suggest to "allow" nodes, areas and relations to be tagged like this. -- Dieterdreist 11:00, 2 April 2012 (BST) [topic moved here from Talk:Proposed features/leisure=bird hide --Fkv (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)]